60...60...60...60...60...60...60...60

[jdobbin]

Half right how?

On his making wrong predictions.

[BubberMiley]

But in terms of Spector's defection, I don’t really buy Bill Kristol’s interpretation, which is along the lines of the “give them enough rope” philosophy. I don’t think it’s ever good for a party to look like it’s dissolving before our very eyes. When the Limbaughs and the Cheneys and the Roves are the only ones left speaking for the GOP, they appear to be extremist, stubborn, paranoid and clinging to a failed ideology. Even if the economy doesn’t appear to have turned the corner in 2010 (and I think it already has), there’s little chance that the party that screwed it up in the first place is going to have gained the momentum yet for a comeback.

Nevertheless, I’m still not thrilled with Spector changing parties. He’s still a Republican---if a centrist one---at heart. I think the Dems would have done well to run against him in 2010 with a real Democrat.

Still, it’s nice to see the tide turning so quickly away from the deranged, angry mob that is now the GOP.

[bush_cheney2004]

that "Bush 9-11 approval rating" was an anomaly extraordinaire... totally in reaction to your country having to "deal with them over here - instead of over there"... patriotism run wild! Nothing more than a blip on the otherwise "dynamic range" downhill slide of GW... and the GOP.

Americans face a far more daunting challenge with the current recession and debt load, but no great patriotic ferver is welling up for President Obama in the way of ratings; he isn't even in the top five so far.

[sharkman]

No trouble. I can work the google machine with expert precision. But you were half-right that, at that point, Obama and Hillary were in the lead? Yeah, way to go with the keen analysis.

You believe that if a person cannot back up their opinion with reason, considered judgement, and real-world examples, their opinion is just as valid as someone who can? Perhaps that's the key difference between a liberal and a conservative.

But, again, not to drift the thread, but what makes me a hypocrite? That I would ask you to explain your opinions? Was there ever an instance where I was asked to explain one of my opinions and I refused?

Don't call people names when you cannot back up your accusation. It's very bad form.

I will try one more time. I choose whom I will discuss and debate with. I gave up on debating with you years ago. Back then you were a one trick pony waving the pot flag and I discovered you were not interested in anything that disagreed with your set views. And that's perfectly fine.

But I don't want to debate with you anymore. You see, when two people who are not going to change their minds engage in a 5 or 6 page debate, it's fruitless. Personally I find it a waste of my time. That is why I do not bother 'backing up my opinion with reason, considered judgement' or whatever other baiting phrases you care to throw at me, when you don't like something I've posted. So the next time you respond to a comment I've made, instead of me even bothering to repost this, please just pretend that I am reposting to your silly demands once again, with these remarks. In the meantime, maybe you should increase your pot intake, you seem kind of grouchy lately.

[BubberMiley]

I gave up on debating with you years ago.

Yes, yes, you don't debate with me except when you do. Until you're backed in a corner. Then you don't anymore.

But in terms of the magic number of 60, I would imagine the GOP will try to stall Franken getting seated as long as they can, democracy in Minnesota be damned.

As I understand, the Coleman/Franken case won't be finished until mid-June at the very earliest, and Coleman is already planning to extend that by pursuing a federal ruling.

Regardless, I'm not sure 60 is the magic number it's cracked up to be. There may be 60 on paper, but with the Independent Liebermans and the Spectors, it's become such a big-tent, truly national party that consensus within that 60 is never going to be a cakewalk.

Edited April 30, 2009 by BubberMiley

[punked]

Here are your historic Bush approval ratings.

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

[BubberMiley]

Those numbers clearly show how events that are beyond the president's control can galvanize popular support in an extreme way. People naturally herd when faced with an enemy. Even I, one of MLW's leftiest, would have been included in that +90percentile (if I qualified to be surveyed) until as late as NewYears2002.

Which, looking back, kind of shames me.

[August1991]

Those numbers clearly show how events that are beyond the president's control can galvanize popular support in an extreme way. People naturally herd when faced with an enemy. Even I, one of MLW's leftiest, would have been included in that +90percentile (if I qualified to be surveyed) until as late as NewYears2002.

I agree and I think that Obama's support numbers are also high for a similar reason. The US is now in a severe recession and people are confused about what is happening. Optimistic by nature, they want to believe that this new president is doing the right thing and for the moment, they are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

BTW, I question the various recent newspaper reports of these popularity numbers if only because of the wording of questions. I trust this daily Rasmussen poll because it shows

general trends in a consistent manner. Obama has been trending down since his election and inauguration but his numbers are still good. In particular, in the past five weeks or so, his numbers haven't changed.

[bush_cheney2004]

Those numbers clearly show how events that are beyond the president's control can galvanize popular support in an extreme way. People naturally herd when faced with an enemy. Even I, one of MLW's leftiest, would have been included in that +90percentile (if I qualified to be surveyed) until as late as NewYears2002.

Which, looking back, kind of shames me.

No matter...as wannabes don't count.

At 100 days, President Reagan also bests Obama's rating. Then he took a bullet for the Gipper.

[BubberMiley]

Then he took a bullet for the Gipper.

I thought he was the Gipper. How could he take a bullet for himself?

Edited April 30, 2009 by BubberMiley

[bush_cheney2004]

I thought he was the Gipper. How could he take a bullet for himself?

Because that's what he did.

[waldo]

that "Bush 9-11 approval rating" was an anomaly extraordinaire... totally in reaction to your country having to "deal with them over here - instead of over there"... patriotism run wild! Nothing more than a blip on the otherwise "dynamic range" downhill slide of GW... and the GOP. In the face of the total defeat of the Republicannots, we can all offer a toast to BushCo for a job well done. Have another look at this graphic:

bush_cheney2004, face the music... stop apologizing for Bush... and stop your incessant whining

Americans face a far more daunting challenge with the current recession and debt load, but no great patriotic ferver is welling up for President Obama in the way of ratings; he isn't even in the top five so far.

interesting… that you might compare 9/11, one of the single-most populace solidifying points in your history… to the economics difficulties of today – a comparison you make in the name of patriotism. Say what!!!

today, we see nothing like the “national pride” fervour that followed 9/11… we see nothing like the anger aimed towards “the enemy”… we see nothing like the unified media and politicians who worked tirelessly to fuel emotions – the patriotic drumbeat was at its peak! There were few openly critical dissenters… anyone who dared criticize the government/leaders/policy was severely chastised and beaten back – just look at what happened to Bill Maher and his aptly named Politically Incorrect show.

today, we see the Republican party openly criticizing Obama and his administration at every turn… partisan politics, as ever. Are you sure you really want to compare today’s situation to that of the 9/11 period… offering a comparison in terms of U.S. citizens rallying towards Obama in the name of a single-most populace patriotic solidifying point – the economy? Really?

why if we are to carry your comparison attempt forward, we should expect Obama – in the name of “pre-emptive defence” – to strike out at some completely unrelated “enemy” that has had nothing to do with the economic difficulties of today. Oh my! Should we expect a Patriot Act II….. cause, after-all, who can be against anything labelled with “patriot”.

[bush_cheney2004]

interesting… that you might compare 9/11, one of the single-most populace solidifying points in your history… to the economics difficulties of today – a comparison you make in the name of patriotism. Say what!!!

Not my idea...see Great Depression, Pearl Harbor, Hostage Crisis, etc., etc..

today, we see nothing like the “national pride” fervour that followed 9/11… we see nothing like the anger aimed towards “the enemy”… we see nothing like the unified media and politicians who worked tirelessly to fuel emotions – the patriotic drumbeat was at its peak! There were few openly critical dissenters… anyone who dared criticize the government/leaders/policy was severely chastised and beaten back – just look at what happened to Bill Maher and his aptly named Politically Incorrect show.

Nonsense....there was plenty of domestic and international "dissent"....they lost.

today, we see the Republican party openly criticizing Obama and his administration at every turn… partisan politics, as ever. Are you sure you really want to compare today’s situation to that of the 9/11 period… offering a comparison in terms of U.S. citizens rallying towards Obama in the name of a single-most populace patriotic solidifying point – the economy? Really?

Do I need your permission from across the wannabe border? I think not.

why if we are to carry your comparison attempt forward, we should expect Obama – in the name of “pre-emptive defence” – to strike out at some completely unrelated “enemy” that has had nothing to do with the economic difficulties of today. Oh my! Should we expect a Patriot Act II….. cause, after-all, who can be against anything labelled with “patriot”.

He already has....see Obama's agenda. And not so much "we" after all, eh?

Edited April 30, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[sharkman]

interesting… that you might compare 9/11, one of the single-most populace solidifying points in your history… to the economics difficulties of today – a comparison you make in the name of patriotism. Say what!!!

today, we see nothing like the “national pride” fervour that followed 9/11… we see nothing like the anger aimed towards “the enemy”… we see nothing like the unified media and politicians who worked tirelessly to fuel emotions – the patriotic drumbeat was at its peak! There were few openly critical dissenters… anyone who dared criticize the government/leaders/policy was severely chastised and beaten back – just look at what happened to Bill Maher and his aptly named Politically Incorrect show.

today, we see the Republican party openly criticizing Obama and his administration at every turn… partisan politics, as ever. Are you sure you really want to compare today’s situation to that of the 9/11 period… offering a comparison in terms of U.S. citizens rallying towards Obama in the name of a single-most populace patriotic solidifying point – the economy? Really?

why if we are to carry your comparison attempt forward, we should expect Obama – in the name of “pre-emptive defence” – to strike out at some completely unrelated “enemy” that has had nothing to do with the economic difficulties of today. Oh my! Should we expect a Patriot Act II….. cause, after-all, who can be against anything labelled with “patriot”.

Yes it's true that patriot fervor swept across the land, but that was the actions of existing patriots. Those who were critical of their nation for things like perceived international bullying tactics, undeserved support for Israel, ignoring environmental evangelists like Al Gore and the supposed fact that W stole the White House(and I could go on and on about grudges and issues that some Americans on the left held), those same people did not partake in or support acts of national pride. So this fervor you speak of which supposedly skewed W's approval numbers, I disagree. It was the fact that terrorists did an unspeakable act on U.S. soil, and a president did something hero-like in response to it instead of navel-gazing or forming a committee to find out what the terrorists' grievances were. That's why his numbers were high.

Major universities took down the U.S. flag(from their American campuses) on the days after 9/11 so as to not offend. I am not making this up. There were many example of anti-american sentiment from the left like this, but their idiotic wishes did not hold the day. They didn't magically start supporting Bush after 9/11 and they were certainly not a part of his approval numbers.

But if W's numbers were high because of something he did(respond to 9/11 with military action) Obama's numbers, on the other hand, have been high simply because of what he is. A black man, the first to be president. It's a big deal. Although he appears to be wasting it.

Edited April 30, 2009 by sharkman

[jdobbin]

Republicans feud over Specter

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21906.html

Faced with a high-profile defection and the prospect of political irrelevance in the Senate, Republicans took off the gloves Wednesday for a ferocious game of finger-pointing.

Republican Sens. Orrin Hatch and George Voinovich blamed the Club for Growth for imposing a right-wing litmus test that chased Arlen Specter out of the Republican Party. The Club for Growth blamed Specter — first for helping to ruin the GOP and then for leaving it. A leading Republican strategist blamed the party for turning its back on moderates. Sen. Lindsey Graham sniped at Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. Specter’s pollster blamed the stimulus bill. Karl Rove blamed Specter himself.

I've been watching some of this over the last day and it has been quite the angry reaction.

I am wondering if other Republicans won't be chased out by having to pass these litmus tests.

[stevoh]

Republicans feud over Specter

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21906.html

I've been watching some of this over the last day and it has been quite the angry reaction.

I am wondering if other Republicans won't be chased out by having to pass these litmus tests.

I believe the republican party has to EXPAND its appeal in order to get back into the race.

Kicking out moderates will CONTRACT its appeal. Is it better to be morally "pure", or actually have influence and power? They are making that choice right now.

[BubberMiley]

Is it better to be morally "pure", or actually have influence and power?

Put that way, I'd say morally pure, but the Republicans are far from either.